Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
March 10, 2023
Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Anna E. Normand
Congress has authorized and appropriated funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Analyst in Natural
environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance for the design and construction of certain
Resources Policy
infrastructure in specified municipalities, counties, and states. This assistance supports different

projects at publicly owned and operated facilities. Projects include construction of water
distribution works, stormwater management, surface water protection, and environmental

restoration, among others. EI assistance authorities generally fall into one of three categories:
 Section 219 EI. Projects and activities (e.g., design assistance) at specific geographic locations (e.g., city,
county, multiple counties) authorized through Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (WRDA 1992; P.L. 102-580), as amended.
 Non-Section 219 EI Projects. Projects authorized in provisions other than Section 219 of WRDA 1992.
 EI Programs. EI programs authorized for broader geographic areas (e.g., states or regions of states), with
eligible types of assistance authorized in various provisions of the authority.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) reviewed enacted legislation likely to include EI assistance authorities and
deauthorization lists to identify over 400 EI assistance authorities with cumulative authorizations of appropriations totaling
around $12.8 billion. The authorizations of appropriations for these activities vary widely, from $100,000 for a water
monitoring station to $1 billion for a seven-state EI program. CRS identified authorized EI assistance in at least 46 states, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. CRS did not identify
authorities for EI assistance in Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, or the remaining territories.
USACE evaluates an activity’s eligibility for assistance by identifying whether an EI assistance authorization exists for the
project’s geographic area, and whether the proposed work is an eligible type of assistance provided for in the authorization.
The authorization’s specifics determine the nature of USACE’s involvement and the nonfederal cost share. USACE is
authorized to perform design and/or construction work with USACE funds and, for certain programmatic authorities, may use
appropriated funds to reimburse nonfederal sponsors for work they perform. Most USACE EI assistance requires cost sharing
at 75% federal and 25% nonfederal, and the nonfederal sponsor—the owner of constructed facilities—is responsible for
operations and maintenance. Unlike traditional USACE water resource projects, EI assistance is not subject to the USACE
planning process (e.g., it does not require a feasibility study); however, other federal laws apply to EI assistance, including
the National Environmental Policy Act.
Congress typically funds EI assistance through USACE’s Construction account in annual Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies appropriations acts. In FY2023, Congress provided $168.5 million for USACE EI assistance
authorities. The explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-
328) included recommendations to fund $130.5 million for EI assistance specifically requested by Members as Community
Project Funding or Congressionally Directed Spending proposals (32 requests were funded). In addition, Division N of P.L.
117-328 provided $18.0 million in emergency appropriations for USACE to allocate to EI assistance authorities in an agency
work plan and Division A of the Continuing Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-
180) provided $20.0 million for EI assistance, which USACE allocated to assistance for Jackson, MS, water and wastewater
infrastructure. The FY2024 President’s budget request includes $5 million for EI assistance; this is the first time an
Administration has requested EI assistance funding.
Congress may consider whether to amend, add, or deauthorize EI assistance authorities and, if so, how to address those
provisions. In the 117th Congress, WRDA 2022 (Division H, Title LXXXI of P.L. 117-263) amended EI assistance
authorities and enacted new EI assistance authorities, which provided a combined increase in authorization of appropriations
of $6.6 billion. Congress also may consider its support for USACE’s EI assistance activities generally, in view of other
federal programs that provide assistance for similar projects and activities. In addition, Congress may consider how funding
is allocated among EI assistance authorities, whether based on Member requests, certain criteria, or other considerations.
Congress may also consider conducting oversight of USACE’s EI assistance activities and its impacts.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 15 Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Environmental Infrastructure Assistance
Congress has authorized and funded the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to assist with
the design and construction of certain infrastructure in specified municipalities, counties, and
states. This assistance supports projects at publicly owned and operated facilities, such as design
and construction of water distribution works, stormwater collection efforts, surface water
protection projects, and environmental restoration projects, among others. This USACE technical
and/or financial assistance is broadly referred to as environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance.
Aside from EI assistance, USACE has water resources development authorities for navigation,
flood risk reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration activities.
Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
Congress first authorized EI assistance in 1992. Congress typically authorizes USACE activities
in omnibus authorization laws, often titled Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs),1 and
WRDA 1992 (P.L. 102-580) contained the first EI assistance authorities. Following WRDA 1992,
Congress authorized new or amended EI assistance authorities in subsequent WRDAs and in
some appropriations laws (i.e., in laws aside from WRDAs), as described in “Evolution of
Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities.” Appendix A provides the legislative text of
example EI assistance authorities.
EI assistance authorities generally fall into one of three categories:
 Section 219 EI. Projects and activities (e.g., design assistance) at specific
geographic locations (e.g., city, county, multiple counties) authorized through
Section 219 of WRDA 1992, as amended.2
 Non-Section 219 EI Projects. Projects authorized in provisions other than
Section 219 of WRDA 1992.3
 EI Programs. EI programs authorized for broader geographic areas (e.g., states
or regions of states), with eligible types of assistance authorized in various
provisions.4 Some EI programs focus more on restoration than on other types of
assistance.

1 For more information on Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), see CRS In Focus IF11322, Water
Resources Development Acts: Primer, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand.
2 These authorities range from covering single municipalities to covering multiple counties in a state to covering a state
or territory.
3 One U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) non-Section 219 environmental infrastructure (EI) project authority has
statutory roots that precede WRDA 1992 (P.L. 102-580). In Section 1113 of WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662), as amended,
Congress authorized USACE to “carry out, without regard to economic analysis, such measures as are necessary to
protect and restore the river diversion structures and associated channels attendant to the operations of the community
ditch and Acequia systems in New Mexico that—(1) are declared to be a political subdivision of the State; or (2)
belong to an Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 5304)).” USACE has allocated funds that Congress appropriated for EI assistance to activities authorized by
Section 1113. For example, USACE allocated $9.4 million of EI assistance funding between FY2014 and FY2020 for
Section 1113 activities in its annual work plans. No other non-Section 219 EI project authority has received funding in
recent fiscal years.
4 EI assistance program authorities state that the authority is for a program, with criteria defining what type of projects
are eligible for assistance under the authority. These programmatic authorities also include direction on how to operate
the authority as a program (e.g., provisions on credit toward the nonfederal cost share). By contrast, EI assistance
authorities for projects are for specific projects and provide less direction on executing the authority than programmatic
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 24 Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Based on a review of enacted legislation likely to include EI assistance authorities and of
deauthorization lists, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) identified over 400 EI assistance
authorities with cumulative authorizations of appropriations totaling approximately $12.8 billion
(see Appendix B).5 The authorizations of appropriations for these activities vary widely, from
$100,000 for a water monitoring station to $1 billion for a seven-state EI program. These
authorization of appropriations are at a fixed level (i.e., authorization of appropriations are not
indexed for inflation).6 CRS identified EI assistance authorities in at least 46 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. CRS
did not identify authorities for EI assistance in Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, or the
remaining territories.
An authorization’s specifics determine the nature of USACE’s involvement and applicable
nonfederal cost share. A project’s eligibility for assistance is based on whether an EI assistance
authorization exists for the project’s geographic area and whether the proposed work is an eligible
type of assistance provided for in the authorization. USACE is authorized to perform design
and/or construction work with USACE funds and, for certain programmatic authorities, may use
appropriated funds to reimburse nonfederal sponsors for work they perform. Although most
USACE EI assistance requires cost sharing at 75% federal and 25% nonfederal, some assistance
authorities are set at 65% federal and 35% nonfederal.7 The nonfederal sponsor is the owner of
constructed facilities and is responsible for 100% of operations and maintenance. USACE and
nonfederal sponsors sign an agreement before USACE provides assistance.8 Unlike traditional
USACE water resource projects, EI assistance is not subject to the USACE planning process
(e.g., it does not require a feasibility study). However, projects that receive EI assistance are

EI assistance authorities.
5 Neither Congress nor USACE has defined environmental infrastructure, but authorities that receive appropriations for
EI assistance have some characteristic authorizing language. This report and its tables may reference authorities that
some may not consider to be EI assistance and may not reference authorities that some consider to be EI assistance.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) included authorities that direct the Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
to provide assistance to nonfederal interests and that include environmental infrastructure in the authority or name of
the authority. CRS also included assistance authorities that do not explicitly include the phrase environmental
infrastructure but describe similar activities (e.g., water supply, wastewater or sewage treatment, stormwater
management) and have similar characteristics (e.g., 25% nonfederal cost share for assistance and 100% nonfederal
operation and maintenance responsibilities) to assistance authorities with the phrase environmental infrastructure (e.g.,
some non-Section 219 project authorities). The “Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure Projects” spreadsheet
that USACE provided to CRS in 2012 also identified some authorities related to environmental restoration activities;
some of these are included as EI assistance in this report, while others are not. For example Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Restoration and Protection Program (Section 510 of WRDA 1996 [P.L. 104-303], as amended) was
included in the USACE spreadsheet, but USACE allocated FY2022 funding for aquatic ecosystem restorations to the
authority, thus CRS does not label it as an EI assistance authority. Although Section 542 of WRDA 2000 (P.L. 106-
541), as amended, for Lake Champlain, VT and NY, was not included in the USACE spreadsheet, USACE has
allocated EI funding in work plans to the program; for this reason, CRS included that authority as EI assistance.
6 Section 584 of WRDA 1996 (P.L. 104-303), as amended, authorized the water monitoring station and Section 595 of
WRDA 1999 (P.L. 106-53), as amended authorized the Western Rural Water seven-state EI program.
7 The nonfederal sponsor must provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal areas (LERRD)
necessary for construction, operation and maintenance of a project; these may credit toward the value of the nonfederal
sponsor’s cost share.
8 Model agreements are located at USACE, “Models for Environmental Infrastructure,” at https://www.usace.army.mil/
Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Partnership-Agreements/model_env-inf/. Section 8149 of WRDA 2022 amended 33
U.S.C. §2222, an authority regarding the use of other federal funds for nonfederal cost shares for USACE studies or
projects. The amendment would expand the provision to include “a study or project under an environmental
infrastructure assistance program” and potentially expand the eligibility of other federal funds for nonfederal cost
shares. It is unclear if EI assistance program includes non-Section 219 EI projects and Section 219 EI assistance
authorities.
Congressional Research Service

2

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

required to comply with other federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.).
Evolution of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
Over the years, Congress has authorized EI assistance for specific geographic areas, amended
existing EI authorities, and established processes that deauthorized some EI authorities.
Originally, Section 219 of WRDA 1992 authorized design assistance for 18 projects. Other
sections of WRDA 1992 authorized design and construction assistance for EI assistance projects
and programs in selected geographic areas (e.g., Section 340, Southern West Virginia). WRDA
1996 added construction assistance for certain Section 219 authorities. In subsequent WRDAs
through WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114) and in selected appropriations laws (e.g., Appendix D of
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001; P.L. 106-554), Congress authorized new and amended
existing USACE EI assistance authorities (e.g., WRDA 2007 added approximately $2.7 billion in
EI assistance authority).
Authority Modifications from 2014 to 2020
Congress did not provide for new EI assistance authorizations in WRDAs from 2014 through
2020, but modified certain EI authorities in these WRDAs. Among other reasons, Congress did
not enact new authorities during this time due to policies restricting congressionally directed
authorization and appropriations (i.e., earmarks) in the 112th-116th Congresses.
Congress provided a process for nonfederal sponsors to propose modifications to EI assistance
authorities when WRDA 2016 (P.L. 114-322, Title I) expanded Section 7001 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-121).9 Through the
Section 7001 proposal process, nonfederal sponsors may propose modifications to existing EI
assistance authorizations (e.g., expand the location, amend eligible project types, or adjust the
authorization of appropriations).10 This process requires USACE to annually submit a report to
Congress identifying proposals by nonfederal interests that meet certain criteria. Congress may
consider these proposals as part of WRDA deliberations. For example, in WRDA 2020 (P.L. 116-
260, Division AA), Congress amended 14 EI assistance authorities to increase their authorizations
of appropriations as proposed through the 7001 process. For four of the EI authorities, WRDA
2020 expanded the authorized geographic scope or types of eligible activities.
Deauthorization Processes
In WRDAs, Congress has authorized various processes to deauthorize existing authorities
meeting certain criteria. In two instances, these processes have resulted in the deauthorization of
EI assistance authorities.11
 In Section 1001(b)(2) of WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662), as amended (33 U.S.C.
§579a(b)(2)), Congress enacted a deauthorization process that USACE used in
2009 to deauthorize certain EI assistance authorities.12

9 See 33 U.S.C. §2282d.
10 For more information on the Section 7001 proposal process, see CRS Insight IN11118, Army Corps of Engineers:
Section 7001 Report on Future Studies and Projects, by Anna E. Normand.
11 CRS did not identify any enacted provisions where Congress has deauthorized individual EI assistance authorities.
12 See the deauthorization list published in 74 Federal Register 31713-31715, July 2, 2009.
Congressional Research Service

3

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

 In WRRDA 2014, Congress enacted a one-time deauthorization process (i.e., the
authority was for developing one list) that the Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works (ASACW) used in 2016 to deauthorize certain EI assistance authorities.13
Congress enacted other one-time deauthorization processes in WRDA 2016 and WRDA 2018. In
WRDA 2020, Congress repealed the ASACW’s existing deauthorization process authorities and
enacted new deauthorization provisions, including a one-time deauthorization authority (33
U.S.C. §579d–2) that excluded EI assistance authorities. This WRDA 2020 process was to
conclude with automatic deauthorization of projects after a two-year period for congressional
review of a deauthorization project list transmitted by the ASACW to Congress. WRDA 2022
(Division H, Title LXXXI; P.L. 117-263) amended the WRDA 2020 process in various ways. The
WRDA 2022 amendments to 33 U.S.C. §579d–2 conclude the deauthorization authority with the
ASACW’s submission of the deauthorization list to Congress for review of the list (i.e., no
automatic deauthorization).14 Unlike in WRDA 2020, EI assistance authorities are not specifically
excluded from the amended one-time deauthorization list process.
New Authorities and Authority Modifications in WRDA 2022
Congressional interest in expanding EI assistance continued in the 117th Congress, which
included new EI assistance authorities in WRDA 2022. In May 2022, the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee considered
their respective WRDA 2022 bills, S. 4136 and H.R. 7776.15 Both committees considered
Member proposals and proposals transmitted by the Administration (e.g., nonfederal proposals
included in a Section 7001 report) when developing their bills, which included new and amended
authorizations for EI assistance.
The enacted WRDA 2022 included nearly all of the EI assistance provisions from the House and
Senate WRDA 2022 bills and included some additional provisions not included in those versions.
EI provisions in the enacted WRDA 2022 varied on the type of infrastructure eligible for
assistance (e.g., wastewater management, groundwater recharge, water recycling, coastal
flooding, environmental restoration), the geographic area covered (e.g., city, multiple cities,
county, multiple counties, state/territory, multiple states, river basin), and the authorization of
appropriations (e.g., less than $1 million, over $100 million). In total, WRDA 2022 increased the
authorization of appropriations for EI by $6.6 billion, more than doubling the amount of
authorization of appropriations previously provided by EI authorities. Specifically, WRDA 2022
included the following sections that provided new or amended EI assistance authorities:16

13 See the deauthorization list published in 81 Federal Register 16147-16153, March 25, 2016.
14 See Section 8301 of WRDA 2022.
15 The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported S. 4136, WRDA 2022, on May 4, 2022, without a
report. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ordered reported H.R. 7776, WRDA 2022, on May 18,
2022.
16 In addition, Section 8376 amended the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program (Section
510 of WRDA 1996 [P.L. 104-303], as amended), to include eligible activities that are similar to other EI assistance
authority activities. This program was recently funded in FY2022 with aquatic ecosystem restoration funding. WRDA
2022 also authorized a Chattahoochee River Program at $40 million (§8144) and Lower Mississippi River
Demonstration Program at $40 million (§8145); both program authorities have some similarities to the Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Restoration and Protection Program and EI assistance authorities, but CRS could not determine if
Congress or USACE would consider the programs as EI assistance authorities or aquatic ecosystem restoration
authorities.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 8 Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

 Section 8311 amended the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI authority (Section 113
of WRDA 1986 [P.L. 99-662], as amended);
 Sections 8319, 8353, and 8359 authorized new programmatic EI assistance
authorities for Los Angeles County, CA; Northern Missouri; and Southwestern
Oregon, respectively;
 Sections 8373 and 8374 amended two programmatic EI assistance authorities for
West Virginia;
 Section 8375 amended 24 Section 219 EI assistance authorities, including 2 that
were reauthorized, and added 132 new Section 219 assistance authorities with
various eligible assistance activities and geographic areas ranging from cities to
multi-county areas to territories and states; and
 Section 8376 amended 12 programmatic EI assistance authorities.
Funding for Environmental Infrastructure Assistance
Congress typically funds EI assistance through USACE’s Construction account in annual Energy
and Water Development and Related Agencies appropriations acts. Sometimes, Congress
provides EI assistance funding through supplemental appropriations acts. Prior to the 112th
Congress, Congress generally funded specific EI assistance authorities through direction in report
language accompanying appropriations acts. During the 112th-116th Congresses, moratorium
policies limited earmarks. During this time, instead of directing funding to specific authorities,
Congress specified a funding amount for EI assistance as part of the “additional funding”
provided by Congress above the President’s budget request, which did not request funding for EI
assistance. For example, Congress provided $100.0 million for USACE to allocate among EI
assistance authorities for FY2021 (see Table 1). Reports and explanatory statements
accompanying appropriations acts directed USACE to develop a work plan allocating additional
funding, included the EI assistance funding, to projects within a certain timeframe (e.g., 60
days).17 In addition, Congress provided guidance on how the Administration was to use the EI
assistance funds.
Table 1. Funding for USACE EI Assistance Authorities, FY2019-FY2023
($ in millions, not adjusted for inflation)
Annual
Supplemental
Appropriations
Appropriations

FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
FY2022
FY2023
Total EI Funding
$77.0
$100.0
$100.0
$99.5
$130.5
$200.0
$38
Number of Funded
29
27
21
25
23
32
14
EI Authorities
Mean Funding per
$2.7
$3.7
$4.8
$4.0
$5.7
$6.3
$2.7
EI Authority
Median Funding per
$1.9
$3.0
$2.9
$1.9
$5.0
$4.4
$1.0
EI Authority

17 USACE work plans are available at USACE, “Civil Works and Budget Performance,” at
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Budget/#Work-Plans.
Congressional Research Service

5

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Annual
Supplemental
Appropriations
Appropriations

FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
FY2022
FY2023
EI as Percentage of
3.5%
3.7%
3.7%
4.0%
7.2%
1.7%
3.2%a
Construction
Account Funding
Source: CRS, compiled from USACE Work Plans (FY2018-FY2023), Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA; P.L. 117-58) and USACE’s IIJA FY2022 spend plan, P.L. 117-180, and P.L. 117-328.
Notes: EI = Environmental infrastructure. Work plans may list multiple line items for EI authorities.
Supplemental appropriations for FY2022 was from the IIJA, and for FY2023 was from Division A of P.L. 117-180
and Division N, Title IV of P.L. 117-328.
a. Analysis only corresponds to Division N, Title IV of P.L. 117-328.
In the 117th Congress, the annual appropriations process allowed for Members to request funding
for geographically-specific projects, which were referred to as Community Project Funding (CPF)
in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) in the Senate. For FY2022 annual
appropriations, the explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), included recommendations to
(1) fund 22 EI assistance authorities specifically requested by Members as CPF/CDS (totaling
$86.5 million) and
(2) provide $13.0 million in Construction account funds for USACE to allocate to EI
assistance authorities in the agency’s work plan.18
Division J, Title III, of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) also
provided $200.0 million for EI assistance authorities in FY2022.19 The IIJA required USACE to
report spend plans for IIJA Construction funding for FY2022 within 60 days of enactment, but
provided no direction on which EI assistance authorities to fund.20
In FY2023, Congress provided $168.5 million for USACE EI assistance authorities. The
explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023
(P.L. 117-328) included recommendations to fund $130.5 million for EI assistance requested by
Members as CPF/CDS (32 requests were funded).21 In addition, Division N, Title IV of P.L. 117-
328 provided $18.0 million in emergency appropriations for USACE to allocate to EI assistance
authorities in an agency work plan within 60 days of enactment.22 Further, for FY2023, Division
A of the Continuing Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L.
117-180) provided $20.0 million in emergency appropriations for EI assistance, which USACE
allocated to Section 219(f)(167) of WRDA 1992, as amended, for water and wastewater

18 The explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103),
is available at https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20-pt1-PgS7819-2.pdf.
19 See CRS Insight IN11723, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Civil Works: Policy Primer, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand, for more information on USACE
IIJA funding and required reporting.
20 See 15 Feb 2022 Construction Spend Plan at USACE, “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” at
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Supplemental-Work/BIL/.
21 The explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328),
is available at https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20.pdf.
22 See FY2023 Construction Work Plan at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2303.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

infrastructure in Jackson, Mississippi.23 The FY2024 President’s budget request includes $5 million for
EI assistance; this is the first time an Administration has requested EI assistance funding.24
Analysis of Funding Data from FY2019 to FY2023
From FY2019 through FY2023, 31 states with EI assistance authorizations received funding from
annual appropriations and supplemental appropriations (Figure 1). This funding supported
projects under EI assistance program authorities, Section 219 projects, and acequias irrigation
systems. Work plans, spend plans, and explanatory statements provide limited information on the
type of projects and work to be accomplished under these authorities. Although they have EI
assistance authorization, 15 states, 4 territories, and the District of Columbia did not receive
funding during this period.
Generally, USACE provides EI assistance funding to authorities that previously had received
funding. Recently, however, Congress has directed USACE to fund several previously unfunded
authorities. From FY2019 through FY2021, USACE limited EI funds to only those authorities
that had received funds in previous years. For enacted FY2021 appropriations (Division D of P.L.
116-260), Congress stated in the accompanying explanatory statement that USACE may allocate
funds to one or two EI authorities that were not previously funded. USACE chose not to fund new
authorities in the FY2021 work plan. However, USACE allocated IIJA funding to 10 authorities
not funded from FY2019 to FY2021. CPF/CDS in FY2022 and FY2023 resulted in Congress
providing appropriations to 15 authorities that were not funded from FY2019 to FY2021.

23 Correspondence between CRS and USACE on January 4, 2023.
24 Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, “USACE 2024 Civil Works Budget Press Conference,” March 9,
2023; USACE, FY2024 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Press Book, March 2023, at
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2317.
Congressional Research Service

7

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Figure 1. Annual Appropriations and IIJA EI Funding by State
(FY2019-FY2023)

Source: CRS, using USACE work plans (FY2018-FY2023), the IIJA FY2022 spend plan released January 19, 2022,
P.L. 117-180, and P.L. 117-328.
Notes: EI = Environmental infrastructure. IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58). FY2023
Emergency accounts for Division A of P.L. 117-180 and Division N of P.L. 117-328.
Congressional Research Service

8

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Considerations for Congress
Adding, Amending, or Deauthorizing EI Assistance Authorities
Congress may consider whether to add, amend, or deauthorize EI assistance authorities and, if so,
how to address those provisions. During the earmark moratorium in the 112th-116th Congresses,
Congress only amended existing EI assistance authorities; these amendments were first proposed
by nonfederal sponsors, and USACE evaluated them through the Section 7001 process. In the
117th Congress, WRDA 2022 included amendments to EI assistance authorities proposed through
the Section 7001 process, but most of the provisions in these bills were not included in a Section
7001 report (i.e., they likely were proposed through Member submissions to the committees).25
Future congresses may consider whether to further address EI assistance requests through
amending existing EI assistance authorities and/or providing new authorities.
Congress may also consider the scope (e.g., geographic area, authorization of appropriations,
activities) for potential new authorities or amendments to existing authorities. For instance, EI
assistance provisions in WRDA 2022 varied widely in the authorization of appropriations,
eligible geographic areas, and types of infrastructure eligible for assistance. The provisions
expanded the geographic scope of EI assistance authority to include all or some parts of
Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Washington, which previously did not have EI
authorities; but they did not include EI authorities for Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, or
America Samoa. In addition, EI assistance authorities are still limited in many other states (e.g.,
covering only a certain city, county, or region of the state). Some new EI assistance authorities
included purposes rarely included in previous authorities, such as resilience measures for
infrastructure and groundwater recharge.
Congress also may consider whether to deauthorize EI assistance authorities. Some EI assistance
authorities have not received funding in recent years even though they previously received
funding, and many EI assistance authorities have never received funding. Some of these unfunded
authorities may no longer reflect a current EI assistance need or may no longer have a nonfederal
entity interested in sponsoring the nonfederal responsibilities (e.g., cost share, operation and
maintenance). While Congress excluded EI assistance authorities from the one-time
deauthorization process enacted in WRDA 2020, WRDA 2022 replaced the WRDA 2020 one-
time deauthorization process for developing a deauthorization list. EI assistance authorities are
not specifically excluded from this new one-time deauthorization list process. CRS did not
identify enacted provisions where Congress has deauthorized individual EI assistance authorities.
Funding EI Assistance Authorities
Although Congress regularly funds USACE EI assistance, Administrations had not requested
funding for the EI authorities until the FY2024 President’s budget request, possibly indicating
that some prior Administrations had considered EI assistance to be a relatively low priority for
USACE. Some in Congress also have considered whether EI assistance activities belong in
USACE. For example, a proposed amendment to the FY2017 Energy and Water Development

25 For example, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s instructions for Member proposals for
WRDA 2022 stated, “Members may submit up to a total of five (5) requests for the authorization of new, project-
specific environmental infrastructure authorities, or the modification of existing environmental infrastructure
authorities.” Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Instructions: Member Electronic Submissions to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for Consideration in the Water Resource Development Act of 2022,
January 2022.
Congressional Research Service

9

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

appropriations bill would have eliminated funding for EI assistance. Those in favor of the
amendment argued that these activities were primarily nonfederal responsibilities, supported by
other federal programs, and were outside of USACE’s traditional missions.26 The amendment did
not pass.27 Other federal programs may provide assistance to similar water projects on a
competitive basis using established criteria (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency’s state
revolving funds, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s small watershed loans).28 Assistance from
some of these programs is not limited to specific geographic areas. These programs may also
differ from EI authorities by leveraging funding to provide financial assistance mainly as loans,
while USACE EI assistance is cost-shared (mostly at 75% federal). EI assistance may also
include design and construction assistance from USACE staff (in addition to funding). Congress
may consider how much funding to provide USACE for EI assistance versus to these other
programs that may address similar water infrastructure needs.
The increase in authorization of appropriations for the WRDA 2022 USACE EI assistance
authorities totaled $6.6 billion, more than doubling the amount of authorized appropriations for
USACE EI assistance. In recent years, authorizations of appropriations have exceeded actual
annual appropriations for EI assistance, which have remained at or below $130.5 million. In
future appropriations bills, Congress may consider how much EI assistance to fund and how
much of that funding is based on Member requests (i.e., CPF/CDS requests) versus how much EI
assistance to fund for allocation by USACE. In the 117th Congress, Congress provided a total of
$217.0 million of EI assistance funding for these Member requests, which included first-time
funding for some authorities. While Congress provided $13.0 million in FY2022 annual
appropriations for EI assistance under additional funding, FY2023 annual appropriations did not
include EI assistance in additional funding. Congress also provided supplemental appropriations
for EI assistance in the IIJA ($200.0 million), P.L. 117-180 ($20.0 million), and Division N of
P.L. 117-263 ($18.0 million); the funding was not directed to specific authorities (i.e., USACE
was to allocate to EI authorities). Congress could continue to prioritize funding for EI assistance
via CPF/CDS requests. If so, Congress may consider whether to establish criteria for evaluating
those requests. Congress may provide more or less funding for USACE to allocate to EI
assistance authorities in a work plan. If providing funding for USACE to allocate, Congress may
consider whether to require that these authorities meet certain criteria (e.g., criteria to be
established pursuant to Section 137 of WRDA 2020) and whether to direct USACE to select new
authorities to fund.
Oversight of EI Assistance Activities
Congress may be interested in conducting oversight of USACE EI assistance activities.29
Oversight could include requiring reporting information on EI assistance policies and execution.
There is limited public information on USACE’s EI assistance activities. USACE budget
justifications provide information on USACE studies and projects included in the budget request;
but because USACE has never requested EI assistance funding, budget justifications do not
include information on these authorities. Some USACE district webpages and project factsheets

26 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, Congressional Record, vol. 162.
No. 64 (April 26, 2016), p. S2429.
27 Chamber Action, Congressional Record, vol. 162. No. 64 (April 26, 2016), p. D428.
28 See CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported Projects and Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water, and Water
Supply Infrastructure, coordinated by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
29 For more information on potential oversight mechanisms, see CRS Report RL30240, Congressional Oversight
Manual, coordinated by Ben Wilhelm, Todd Garvey, and Christopher M. Davis.
Congressional Research Service

10

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

provide certain limited information on USACE EI assistance authorities,30 but many USACE
district websites do not provide current or any information on EI assistance authorities in their
district. USACE publishes model project partnership agreements that cover many EI assistance
authorities,31 but CRS could not identify further policy guidance (e.g., USACE engineering
regulation) on USACE’s EI assistance.
In 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) studied how USACE allocated
funding for Section 219 EI assistance. In its report, GAO found USACE was not following any
national criteria or policy in funding these projects, despite congressional guidance provided in
explanatory statements and conference reports accompanying enacted appropriations laws.32
Following GAO’s report, Section 137 of WRDA 2020 directed the ASACW to develop specific
criteria for evaluating and ranking individual EI assistance projects, while specifying certain
considerations that should be included in the criteria. In addition, the section directed the
ASACW to submit with USACE’s FY2022 budget request, and with every other subsequent
budget request, a report that identifies the ASACW’s ranking of individual EI assistance projects
for the ASACW to carry out. As of December 2022, USACE had not released any criteria or
reports pursuant to the provision. CRS could also not identify this information in subsequent
budget requests.
Congress may also have questions regarding how efficiently the EI assistance funds are spent on
projects and how effective the funded projects are in accomplishing their authorized purposes.
The 2019 GAO report on EI assistance only analyzed Section 219 assistance for FY2013-
FY2017.33 Congress may be interested in further analysis of this issue, extending to all EI
assistance authorities and fiscal years since FY2017.

30 For example, see USACE Philadelphia District & Marine Design Center Website, “Southeastern PA Environmental
Improvements Program,” at https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/SE-PA-Environmental-
Improvement-Program/, and USACE Digital Library, “Section 219 Northeast Pennsylvania Environmental
Infrastructure Program, PA,” at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16021coll11/id/615/.
31 Model agreements are located at USACE, “Models for Environmental Infrastructure,” at
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Partnership-Agreements/model_env-inf/.
32 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Army Corps of Engineers: Process for Selecting Section 219
Projects for Funding Could Be Strengthened, GAO-19-487, June 13, 2019, at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-
487.
33 GAO, Army Corps of Engineers: Process for Selecting Section 219 Projects for Funding Could Be Strengthened,
GAO-19-487, June 13, 2019, at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-487.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 24 Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Appendix A. Examples of Environmental
Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
Congress has authorized and amended USACE environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance in
omnibus authorization laws, often titled Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), and in
appropriations laws. Below are examples of EI assistance authorities that have been enacted into
law. Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA 1992; P.L. 102-580),
as amended, includes the majority of EI assistance authorities. The excerpt of the authority below
is abridged for brevity. Other examples include the following:
 a non-Section 219 EI project authority—Acequias Irrigation System (Section
1113 of WRDA 1986 [P.L. 99-662] as amended), and
 EI programmatic authorities—
 for a restoration example, Lake Tahoe Basin Restoration (Section 108,
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 [Division C of P.L.
108-447]),
 for an example of regions within a state, Southern and Eastern Kentucky
(Section 531, WRDA 1996 [P.L. 104-303], as amended), and
 for a multi-state example, Western Rural Water (Section 595 of WRDA 1999
[P.L. 106-53], as amended).
Section 219, WRDA 1992, as Amended34
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance to non-Federal interests for
carrying out water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development
projects described in subsection (c), including waste water treatment and related facilities and
water supply, storage, treatment, and distribution facilities. Such assistance may be in the form of
technical and planning and design assistance. If the Secretary is to provide any design or
engineering assistance to carry out a project under this section, the Secretary shall obtain by
procurement from private sources all services necessary for the Secretary to provide such
assistance, unless the Secretary finds that—
(1) the service would require the use of a new technology unavailable in the private sector, or
(2) a solicitation or request for proposal has failed to attract 2 or more bids or proposals.
(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the cost of projects for which
assistance is provided under this section shall not be less than 25 percent, except that such share
shall be subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay, including the procedures and
regulations relating to ability to pay established under section 103(m) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986.
(c) PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS.—The projects for which the Secretary is authorized to provide
assistance under subsection (a) are as follows:
(2) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—A combined sewer overflow treatment facility for the city of
Atlanta, Georgia.

34 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) included the main provisions of this authority but omitted most
geographic specific provisions for brevity. See Appendix B for a list of all Section 219 geographic provisions.
Congressional Research Service

12

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

(3) HAZARD, KENTUCKY.—A water system (including a 13,000,000 gallon per day water
treatment plant), intake structures, raw water pipelines and pumps, distribution lines, and
pumps and storage tanks for Hazard, Kentucky.
(4) ROUGE RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Completion of a comprehensive streamflow
enhancement project for the Western Townships Utility Authority, Rouge River, Wayne
County, Michigan.
(5) JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Provision of an alternative water supply and a
project for the elimination or control of combined sewer overflows projects for the design,
installation, enhancement, or repair of sewer systems for Jackson County, Mississippi.
....
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated for
providing assistance under this section $30,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until
expended.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.—
There are authorized to be appropriated for providing construction assistance under this section:
(1) $57,500,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(5);
(5) $75,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(2);
...
(f) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide assistance under subsection (a)
and assistance for construction for the following:
(1) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—The project described in subsection (c)(2), modified to include
watershed restoration and development in the regional Atlanta watershed, including Big
Creek and Rock Creek.
(10) EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—$52,000,000 for water supply, wastewater infrastructure, and
environmental restoration projects in the counties of Accomack, Northampton, Lee,
Norton, Wise, Scott, Russell, Dickenson, Buchanan, and Tazewell, Virginia.
(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), towards the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest
for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.
(11) NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.—$20,000,000 for water related infrastructure in the
counties of Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan,
Bradford, and Monroe, Pennsylvania, including assistance for the Mountoursville Regional
Sewer Authority, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
(12) CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—$120,000,000 for water related infrastructure projects in the
counties of Benton, Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter, Indiana.
(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), towards the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest
for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.
Congressional Research Service

13

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

(13) CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,000,000 for water related infrastructure
in Clinton County, Pennsylvania.
(21) BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.—$90,000,000 for water related infrastructure for the
parishes of East Baton Rouge, Ascension, and Livingston, Louisiana.
...
(405) MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN.—$4,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure,
including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), and resource
protection and development, in the Milwaukee metropolitan area, Wisconsin.
Section 1113, WRDA 1986, as Amended35
ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
(a)(1) The Congress finds that the irrigation ditch systems in New Mexico, known as the Acequia
systems, date from the eighteenth century, and that these early engineering works have
significance in the settlement and development of the western portion of the United States.
(2) The Congress, therefore, declares that the restoration and preservation of the Acequia
systems has cultural and historic values to the region.
(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary shall carry out, without regard to economic analysis,
such measures as are necessary to protect and restore the river diversion structures and associated
channels attendant to the operations of the community ditch and Acequia systems in New Mexico
that—
(1) are declared to be a political subdivision of the State; or
(2) belong to an Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)).
(c) INCLUSIONS.—The measures described in subsection (b) shall, to the maximum extent
practicable—
(1) ensure greater resiliency of diversion structures, including to flow variations, prolonged
drought conditions, invasive plant species, and threats from changing hydrological and
climatic conditions; or
(2) support research, development, and training for innovative management solutions,
including those for controlling invasive aquatic plants that affect acequias.
(d) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of carrying out the measures described
in subsection (b), including study costs, shall be 25 percent, except that in the case of a measure
benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section
160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), including
economically disadvantaged communities located in urban and rural areas, the Federal share of
the cost of carrying out such measure shall be 90 percent.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out the measures described in subsection (b) $80,000,000.

35 Although Section 1113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986; P.L. 99-662), as amended,
was enacted before other environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance provisions, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) has provided funding for the authority using appropriations Congress has specified for EI assistance.
Congressional Research Service

14

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

(f) PUBLIC ENTITY STATUS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall consider the historic Acequia systems (community
ditches) of the southwestern United States as public entities, if these systems are chartered by
the respective State laws as political subdivisions of that State or belong to an Indian Tribe
within the State of New Mexico.
(2) EFFECT.—The public entity status provided under paragraph (1) shall allow the officials
of the Acequia systems described in such paragraph to enter into agreements and serve as
local sponsors of water-related projects of the Secretary.
Section 108, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
2005, as Amended36
LAKE TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA.
(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ``Lake Tahoe Basin’’ means the entire watershed
drainage of Lake Tahoe including that portion of the Truckee River 1,000 feet downstream from
the United States Bureau of Reclamation dam in Tahoe City, California.
(b) Establishment of Program.—The Secretary may establish a program for providing
environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Lake Tahoe Basin.
(c) Form of Assistance.—Assistance under this section may be in the form of planning, design,
and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection
and development projects in Lake Tahoe Basin—
(1) urban stormwater conveyance, treatment and related facilities;
(2) watershed planning, science and research;
(3) environmental restoration; and
(4) surface water resource protection and development.
(d) Public Ownership Requirement.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under
this section only if the project is publicly owned.
(e) Local Cooperation Agreement.—
(1) In general.—Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter into
a local cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and
construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance.
(2) Requirements.—Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall
provide for the following:
(A) Plan.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and
State and Regional officials, of appropriate environmental documentation, engineering
plans and specifications.
(B) Legal and institutional structures.—Establishment of such legal and institutional
structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by
the non-Federal interest.

36 Lake Tahoe Basin Restoration is an example of an EI assistance authority with an environmental restoration focus,
but USACE has provided funding for the authority using appropriations Congress has specified for EI assistance.
Congressional Research Service

15

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

(3) Cost sharing.—
(A) In general.—The Federal share of project costs under each local cooperation
agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may
be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
(B) Credit for design work.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the
reasonable costs of planning and design work completed by the non-Federal interest
before entering into a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a project.
(C) Land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations.—The non-Federal interest shall
receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided by the non-
Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable
costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but not to exceed 25
percent of total project costs.
(D) Operation and maintenance.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance
costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100
percent.
(f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.—Nothing in this section waives, limits, or
otherwise affects the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that would otherwise
apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided under this section.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section for the period beginning with fiscal year 2005, $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Section 531, WRDA 1996, as Amended
SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish a program for providing
environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in southern and eastern Kentucky.
(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance under this section may be in the form of design and
construction assistance for water related environmental infrastructure, environmental restoration,
and resource protection and development projects in southern and eastern Kentucky, including
projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, surface
water resource protection and development, and small stream flooding, local storm water
drainage, and related problems.
(c) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a
project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
(d) PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter
into a project cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and
construction of the project to be carried out with such assistance. Notwithstanding section
221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project undertaken
under this section, with the consent of the affected local government, a non-Federal interest
may include a nonprofit entity.
Congressional Research Service

16

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each agreement entered into under this subsection shall provide for
the following:
(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and
State officials, of a facilities development plan or resource protection plan, including
appropriate plans and specifications.
(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and
institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the
project by the non-Federal interest.
(3) COST SHARING.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Total project costs under each agreement entered into under this
subsection shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal. The Federal
share may be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for
the reasonable costs of design work completed by such interest before entering into the
agreement with the Secretary.
(C) CREDIT FOR CERTAIN FINANCING COSTS.—In the event of a delay in the
reimbursement of the non-Federal share of a project, the non-Federal interest shall
receive credit for reasonable interest and other associated financing costs necessary for
such non-Federal interest to provide the non-Federal share of the project’s cost.
(D) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The non-Federal interest shall
receive credit for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided by the non-
Federal interest toward its share of project costs (including costs associated with
obtaining permits necessary for the placement of such project on publicly owned or
controlled lands), but not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and
maintenance costs for projects constructed under an agreement entered into under this
subsection shall be 100 percent.
(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section
shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or otherwise affecting the applicability of any provision
of Federal or State law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance
provided under this section.
(f) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 1999, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a
report on the results of the program carried out under this section, together with recommendations
concerning whether or not such program should be implemented on a national basis.
(g) SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘southern
and eastern Kentucky’’ means Morgan, Floyd, Pulaski, Wayne, Laurel, Knox, Pike, Menifee,
Perry, Harlan, Breathitt, Martin, Jackson, Wolfe, Clay, Magoffin, Owsley, Johnson, Leslie,
Lawrence, Knott, Bell, McCreary, Rockcastle, Whitley, Lee, Boyd, Carter, Elliott, Lincoln, Bath,
Rowan, and Letcher Counties, Kentucky.
(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $100,000,000.
(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to
administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
Congressional Research Service

17

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Section 595, WRDA 1999, as Amended
WESTERN RURAL WATER
(a) DEFINITION.—ln this section:
(1) RURAL NEVADA.—The term ‘rural Nevada’ means—
(A) the counties of Lincoln, White Pine, Nye, Eureka, Elko, Humboldt, Pershing,
Churchill, Storey, Lyon, Carson, Douglas, Mineral, Esmeralda, and Lander, Nevada;
(B) the portions of Washoe County,· Nevada, that are located outside the cities of Reno
and Sparks; and
(C) the portions of Clark County, Nevada, that are located outside the cities of Las Vegas,
North Las Vegas, and Henderson and the unincorporated portion of the county in the Las
Vegas Valley.
(2) RURAL UTAH.—The term ‘rural Utah’ means-
(A) the counties of Box Elder, Cache, Rich, Tooele, Morgan, Summit, Daggett, Wasatch,
Duchesne, Uintah, Juab, Sanpete, Carbon, Millard, Sevier, Emery, Grand, Beaver, Piute,
Wayne, Iron, Garfield, San Juan, and Kane, Utah; and
(B) the portions of Washington County, Utah, that are located outside the city of St.
George, Utah.
(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish a program for providing
environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Arizona, Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New
Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming. (c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.-Assistance under this section
may be in the form of—
(1) design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and
resource protection and development in Arizona, Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New
Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming, including projects for—
(A) wastewater treatment and related facilities; (B) water supply and related facilities; (C)
environmental restoration; and (D) surface water resource protection and development;
and
(2) technical assistance to small and rural communities for water planning and issues relating
to access to water resources.
(d) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a
project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.—-
(1) IN GENERAL-Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter
into a local cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and
construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance.
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this
subsection shall provide for the following:
(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and
State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including
appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
Congressional Research Service

18

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and
institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the
project by the non-Federal interest.
(3) COST SHARING.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of project costs under each local cooperation
agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may
be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for
the reasonable costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering
into a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a project.
(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—ln case of a delay in the funding of the non-Federal
share of the costs of a project that is the subject of an agreement under this section, the
non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the
non-Federal share of the project costs.
(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND RELOCATIONS.—The non-
Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations
provided by the non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of project costs
(including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled
land), but not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and
maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section
shall be 100 percent.
(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section
waives, limits, or otherwise affects the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that
would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided under this section.
(g) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
on the results of the program carried out under this section, including recommendations
concerning whether the program should be implemented on a national basis.
(h) ELIGIBILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Assistance under this section shall be made available to all eligible
States and locales described in subsection (b) consistent with program priorities determined
by the Secretary in accordance with criteria developed by the Secretary to establish the
program priorities.
(2) SELECTION OF PROJECTS.—ln selecting projects for assistance under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to a project located in an eligible State or local entity for which
the project sponsor is prepared to—
(A) execute a new or amended project cooperation agreement; and
(B) commence promptly after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2016.
(3) RURAL PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall consider a project authorized under this
section and an environmental infrastructure project authorized under section 219 of the Water
Congressional Research Service

19

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580; 106 Stat. 4835) for new starts on the
same basis as any other similarly funded project.
(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section, to remain available until expended—
(1) for the period beginning with fiscal year 2001, $800,000,000 for Idaho, Montana, rural
Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming; and
(2) $200,000,000 for Arizona.
Congressional Research Service

20

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Appendix B. Summary of Environmental
Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
Table B-1. Summary of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Section 219 Project Authorities
Colonias Along the United States-
Section 219(c)(18) as modified by (e)(9),
$35,000,000
Mexico Border
WRDA 1992, as amended
Alabama
Section 219(f)(274), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
St. Clair, Blount, and Cul am Counties,
Section 219(f)(78), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
AL
Crawford County, AR
Section 219(f)(79), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Eastern Arkansas Enterprise
Section 219(c)(20) as modified by (e)(11),
$20,000,000
Community, AR
WRDA 1992, as amended
Chandler, AZ
Section 219(f)(275), WRDA 1992, as amended
$18,750,000
Marana, AZ
Section 219(c)(19) as modified by (e)(10),
$27,000,000
WRDA 1992, as amended
Pinal County, AZ
Section 219(f)(276), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Temple, AZ
Section 219(f)(277), WRDA 1992, as amended
$37,500,000
Alameda County, CA
Section 219(f)(278), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,
Section 219(f)(80), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
CA
Aliso Creek, Orange County, CA
Section 219(f)(81), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Alpine, CA
Section 219(f)(77), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Amador County, CA
Section 219(f)(82), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Arcadia, Sierra Madre, and Upland, CA
Section 219(f)(83), WRDA 1992, as amended
$33,000,000
Bell Gardens, CA
Section 219(f)(279), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,500,000
Big Bear Area Region Wastewater
Section 219(f)(84), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Agency, CA
Brawley Colonia, Imperial County, CA
Section 219(f)(85), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,400,000
Calaveras County, CA
Section 219(f)(86), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,280,000
Calimesa, CA
Section 219(f)(280), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,500,000
Cambria, CA
Section 219(f)(48), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,300,000
Compton Creek, CA
Section 219(f)(281), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,165,000
Contra Costa Water District, CA
Section 219(f)(87), WRDA 1992, as amended
$23,000,000
Coronado, CA
Section 219(f)(71), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Desert Hot Springs, CA
Section 219(c)(23) as modified by (e)(12),
$35,000,000
WRDA 1992, as amended
Downey, CA
Section 219(f)(282), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Congressional Research Service

21

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara Section 219(f)(88), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Areas, CA
East County, San Diego County, CA
Section 219(f)(283), WRDA 1992, as amended
$70,000,000
East Palo Alto, CA
Section 219(f)(89), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
East San Joaquin County, CA
Section 219(f)(22), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Eastern Los Angeles County, CA
Section 219(f)(284), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Escondido Creek, CA
Section 219(f)(285), WRDA 1992, as amended
$34,000,000
Fontana, CA
Section 219(f)(286), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,000,000
Harbor/South Bay, CA
Section 219(f)(43), WRDA 1992, as amended
$70,000,000
Healdsburg, CA
Section 219(f)(287), WRDA 1992, as amended
$23,500,000
Huntington Beach, CA
Section 219(c)(25) as modified by (e)(13),
$20,000,000
WRDA 1992, as amended
Imperial County, CA
Section 219(f)(90), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Inglewood, CA
Section 219(c)(26) as modified by (e)(14),
$20,000,000
WRDA 1992, as amended
Inland Empire, CA
Section 219(f)(288), WRDA 1992, as amended
$60,000,000
La Habra, CA
Section 219(f)(91), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
La Mirada, CA
Section 219(f)(92), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Lancaster, CA
Section 219(f)(41), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and
Section 219(f)(74), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Nevada Counties, CA
Lomita, CA
Section 219(f)(289), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,716,600
Los Angeles County, CA
Section 219(f)(93), WRDA 1992, as amended
$103,000,000
Los Angeles County, CA
Section 219(f)(94), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Los Osos, CA
Section 219(c)(27) as modified by (e)(15),
$35,000,000
WRDA 1992, as amended
Malibu, CA
Section 219(f)(95), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Marin County, CA
Section 219(f)(290), WRDA 1992, as amended
$28,000,000
Maywood, CA
Section 219(f)(291), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Montebello, CA
Section 219(f)(96), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Monterey Peninsula, CA
Section 219(f)(292), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
New River, CA
Section 219(f)(97), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
North Richmond, CA
Section 219(f)(293), WRDA 1992, as amended
$45,000,000
North Valley Region, Lancaster, CA
Section 219(f)(50), WRDA 1992, as amended
$24,500,000
Norwalk, CA
Section 219(c)(28) as modified by (e)(16),
$20,000,000
WRDA 1992, as amended
Ontario, CA
Section 219(f)(294), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,700,000
Orange County, CA
Section 219(f)(98), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Paramount, CA
Section 219(f)(295), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Congressional Research Service

22

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Petaluma, CA
Section 219(f)(296), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,700,000
Placer and El Dorado Counties, CA
Section 219(f)(73), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Placer County, CA
Section 219(f)(297), WRDA 1992, as amended
$21,000,000
Port of Stockton, Stockton, CA
Section 219(f)(99), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Perris, CA
Section 219(f)(100), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Rialto, CA
Section 219(f)(298), WRDA 1992, as amended
$27,500,000
Rincon Reservation, CA
Section 219(f)(299), WRDA 1992, as amended
$38,000,000
Sacramento Area, CA
Section 219(f)(23), WRDA 1992, as amended
$45,000,000
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, CA
Section 219(f)(300), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
San Bernardino County, CA
Section 219(f)(101), WRDA 1992, as amended
$9,000,000
San Joaquin and Stanislaus, CA
Section 219(f)(301), WRDA 1992, as amended
$200,000,000
San Ramon Valley, CA
Section 219(f)(42), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Santa Clara County, CA
Section 219(f)(102), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,500,000
Santa Monica, CA
Section 219(f)(103), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Santa Rosa, CA
Section 219(f)(302), WRDA 1992, as amended
$19,400,000
Sierra Madre, CA
Section 219(f)(303), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Smith River, CA
Section 219(f)(304), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Southern Lost Angeles County, CA
Section 219(f)(104), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
South Perris, CA
Section 219(f)(52), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
South San Francisco, CA
Section 219(f)(305), WRDA 1992, as amended
$270,000,000
Stockton, CA
Section 219(f)(105), WRDA 1992, as amended
$33,000,000
Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego
Section 219(f)(106), WRDA 1992, as amended
$375,000
County, CA
Temecula, CA
Section 219(f)(306), WRDA 1992, as amended
$18,000,000
Torrance, CA
Section 219(f)(307), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Western Contra Costa County, CA
Section 219(f)(308), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Whittier, CA
Section 219(f)(107), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,000,000
Yolo County, CA
Section 219(f)(309), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Arkansas Valley Conduit, CO
Section 219(f)(108), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Boulder County, CO
Section 219(f)(109), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Montezuma and La Plata Counties, CO
Section 219(f)(110), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and
Section 219(f)(111), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Prowers Counties, CO
Pueblo and Otero Counties, CO
Section 219(f)(112), WRDA 1992, as amended
$34,000,000
Enfield, CT
Section 219(f)(113), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Hebron, CT
Section 219(f)(310), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,700,000
Ledyard and Montvil e, CT
Section 219(f)(114), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,113,000
Congressional Research Service

23

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
New Haven, CT
Section 219(f)(115), WRDA 1992, as amended
$300,000
New London, CT
Section 219(f)(311), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,000,000
Norwalk, CT
Section 219(f)(116), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Plainvil e, CT
Section 219(f)(117), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,280,000
Southington, CT
Section 219(f)(118), WRDA 1992, as amended
$9,420,000
Windham, CT
Section 219(f)(312), WRDA 1992, as amended
$18,000,000
District of Columbia
Section 219(f)(120), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Washington, DC
Section 219(f)(316), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Anacostia River, DC and MD
Section 219(f)(119), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Kent, DE
Section 219(f)(313), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
New Castle, DE
Section 219(f)(314), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Sussex, DE
Section 219(f)(315), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Charlotte County, FL
Section 219(f)(121), WRDA 1992, as amended
$33,000,000
Charlotte, Lee, and Col ier Counties,
Section 219(f)(122), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
FL
Col ier County, FL
Section 219(f)(123), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Hil sborough County, FL
Section 219(f)(124), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,250,000
Jacksonvil e, FL
Section 219(f)(125), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Longboat Key, FL
Section 219(f)(317), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,750,000
Miami-Dade County, FL
Section 219(f)(128), WRDA 1992, as amended
$190,250,000
Martin, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach
Section 219(f)(318), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Counties, FL
Palm Beach County, FL
Section 219(f)(129), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,500,000
Polk County, FL
Section 219(f)(319), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Okeechobee County, FL
Section 219(f)(320), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Orange County, FL
Section 219(f)(321), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Sarasota County, FL
Section 219(f)(126), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
South Seminole and North Orange
Section 219(f)(127), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
County, FL
Georgia
Section 219(f)(322), WRDA 1992, as amended
$75,000,000
Albany, GA
Section 219(f)(130), WRDA 1992, as amended
$109,000,000
Atlanta, GA
Section 219(c)(2) as modified by (f)(1), WRDA
$75,000,000
1992, as amended
Banks County, GA
Section 219(f)(131), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Berrien County, GA
Section 219(f)(132), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Chattooga County, GA
Section 219(f)(133), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,000,000
Chattooga, Floyd, Gordon, Walker, and Section 219(f)(134), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Whitfield Counties, GA
Congressional Research Service

24

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Dahlonega, GA
Section 219(f)(135), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
East Point, GA
Section 219(f)(136), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Fayettevil e, Grantvil e, Lagrange, Pine
Section 219(f)(137), WRDA 1992, as amended
$24,500,000
Mountain (Harris County), Douglasvil e,
and Carrol ton, GA
Meriwether and Spalding Counties, GA
Section 219(f)(138), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Moultrie, GA
Section 219(f)(139), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Stephens County/City of Toccoa, GA
Section 219(f)(140), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,000,000
Guam
Section 219(f)(323), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
State of Hawaii
Section 219(f)(324), WRDA 1992, as amended
$75,000,000
County of Hawaii, HI
Section 219(f)(325), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Honolulu, HI
Section 219(f)(326), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Kauai, HI
Section 219(f)(327), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Maui, HI
Section 219(f)(328), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Cook County and Lake County, IL
Section 219(f)(54), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Dixmoor, IL
Section 219(f)(329), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Forest Park, IL
Section 219(f)(330), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Lemont, IL
Section 219(f)(331), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,135,000
Lockport, IL
Section 219(f)(332), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,550,000
Madison and St. Clair Counties, IL
Section 219(f)(55), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Montgomery and Christian Counties, IL Section 219(f)(333), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Wil County, IL
Section 219(f)(334), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Calumet Region, IN
Section 219(f)(12), WRDA 1992, as amended
$125,000,000
Indianapolis, IN
Section 219(f)(75), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,430,000
North Vernon and Butlervil e, IN
Section 219(f)(141), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,700,000
Salem, Washington County, IN
Section 219(f)(142), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,200,000
Atchison, KS
Section 219(f)(143), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Central Kentucky
Section 219(f)(144), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Hazard, KY
Section 219(c)(3), WRDA 1992, as amended
—
Winchester, KY
Section 219(c)(41), WRDA 1992, as amended
—
Baton Rouge, LA
Section 219(f)(21), WRDA 1992, as amended
$90,000,000
Iberia Parish, LA
Section 219(f)(56), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Lafayette, LA
Section 219(f)(145), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,200,000
Lafourche Parish, LA
Section 219(f)(146), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,300,000
Lake Charles, LA
Section 219(f)(147), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Northwest Louisiana Council of
Section 219(f)(148), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Governments, LA
Orleans Parish, LA
Section 219(f)(335), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Congressional Research Service

25

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Ouachita Parish, LA
Section 219(f)(149), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Plaquemine, LA
Section 219(f)(150), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Rapides Area Planning Commission, LA
Section 219(f)(151), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Shreveport, LA
Section 219(f)(152), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
South Central Planning and
Section 219(f)(153), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,500,000
Development Commission, LA
St. Charles, St. Bernard, and
Section 219(c)(33) and (e)(18), WRDA 1992,
$70,000,000
Plaquemines Parishes, LA
as amended
St. John the Baptist, St. James, and
Section 219(c)(34) and (e)(19), WRDA 1992,
$36,000,000
Assumption Parishes, LA
as amended
Union-Lincoln Regional Water Supply
Section 219(f)(154), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Project, LA
Fitchburg, MA
Section 219(f)(336), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Haverhil , MA
Section 219(f)(337), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Lawrence, MA
Section 219(f)(338), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Lowell, MA
Section 219(f)(339), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Methuen, MA
Section 219(f)(340), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Maryland
Section 219(f)(341), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Boonsboro, MD
Section 219(f)(342), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Brunswick, MD
Section 219(f)(343), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Cascade Charter Township, MI
Section 219(f)(344), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,200,000
Chesapeake Bay Improvements, MD,
Section 219(f)(155), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
VA, and DC
Chesapeake Bay Region, MD and VA
Section 219(f)(156), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Genesee County, MI
Section 219(f)(59), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,700,000
Macomb County, MI
Section 219(f)(345), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Michigan Combined Sewer Overflows,
Section 219(f)(157), WRDA 1992, as amended
$85,000,000
MI
Negaunee, MI
Section 219(f)(60), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Oakland County, MI
Section 219(f)(29), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Rouge River, MI
Section 219(c)(4), WRDA 1992, as amended
—
Central Iron Range Sanitary Sewer
Section 219(f)(158), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,000,000
District, MN
Central Lake Region Sanitary District,
Section 219(f)(159), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
MN
Garrison, Crow Wing County, Mil e
Section 219(f)(61), WRDA 1992, as amended
$17,000,000
Lacs County, Mil e Lacs Indian
Reservation, and Kathio Township, MN
Goodview, MN
Section 219(f)(160), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Grand Rapids, MN
Section 219(f)(161), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Congressional Research Service

26

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Northfield, MN
Section 219(f)(346), WRDA 1992, as amended
$33,450,000
Wil mar, MN
Section 219(f)(162), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Centertown, MO
Section 219(f)(347), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,900,000
City of St. Louis, MO
Section 219(f)(348), WRDA 1992, as amended
$45,000,000
St. Louis County, MO
Section 219(f)(349), WRDA 1992, as amended
$45,000,000
St. Louis, MO
Section 219(f)(32), WRDA 1992, as amended
$70,000,000
Saipan, MP
Section 219(f)(203), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Biloxi, MS
Section 219(f)(163), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Clinton, MS
Section 219(f)(350), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,600,000
Corinth, MS
Section 219(f)(164), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,500,000
Desoto County, MS
Section 219(f)(30), WRDA 1992, as amended
$130,000,000
Gulfport, MS
Section 219(f)(165), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Harrison County, MS
Section 219(f)(166), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Jackson, MS
Section 219(f)(167), WRDA 1992, as amended
$125,000,000
Jackson County, MS
Section 219(c)(5) as modified by (e)(1), WRDA
$57,500,000
1992, as amended
Madison County, MS
Section 219(f)(351), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Meridian, MS
Section 219(f)(352), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Oxford, MS
Section 219(f)(353), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Rankin County, MS
Section 219(f)(354), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Cabarrus County, NC
Section 219(f)(191), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,500,000
Cary, Wake County, NC
Section 219(f)(192), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Charlotte, NC
Section 219(f)(193), WRDA 1992, as amended
$14,000,000
Fayettevil e, Cumberland County, NC
Section 219(f)(194), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Mooresvil e, NC
Section 219(f)(195), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Neuse Regional Water and Sewer
Section 219(f)(196), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Authority, NC
Richmond County, NC
Section 219(f)(197), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,500,000
Stanly County, NC
Section 219(f)(64), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,900,000
Union County, NC
Section 219(f)(198), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Washington County, NC
Section 219(f)(199), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Winston-Salem, NC
Section 219(f)(200), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
North Dakota
Section 219(f)(201), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Devils Lake, ND
Section 219(f)(202), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Lebanon, NH
Section 219(f)(37), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,000,000
Manchester, NH
Section 219(f)(355), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Bayonne, NJ
Section 219(f)(356), WRDA 1992, as amended
$825,000
Congressional Research Service

27

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Camden, NJ
Section 219(f)(357), WRDA 1992, as amended
$119,000,000
Cranford Township, NJ
Section 219(f)(175), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Essex and Sussex Counties, NJ
Section 219(f)(358), WRDA 1992, as amended
$60,000,000
Flemington, NJ
Section 219(f)(359), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,500,000
Jefferson, NJ
Section 219(f)(360), WRDA 1992, as amended
$90,000,000
Kearny, NJ
Section 219(f)(361), WRDA 1992, as amended
$69,900,000
Long Hil , NJ
Section 219(f)(362), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,500,000
Middletown Township, NJ
Section 219(f)(176), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,100,000
Morris County, NJ
Section 219(f)(363), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Passaic, NJ
Section 219(f)(364), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Paterson, NJ
Section 219(f)(177), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Phil ipsburg, NJ
Section 219(f)(365), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,600,000
Rahway, NJ
Section 219(f)(366), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,250,000
Rahway Valley, NJ
Section 219(f)(178), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Roselle, NJ
Section 219(f)(367), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
South Orange Vil age, NJ
Section 219(f)(368), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,500,000
Summit, NJ
Section 219(f)(369), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Warren, NJ
Section 219(f)(370), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,550,000
Espanola, NM
Section 219(f)(371), WRDA 1992, as amended
$21,995,000
Farmington, NM
Section 219(f)(372), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,500,000
Mora County, NM
Section 219(f)(373), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,874,000
Sante Fe, NM
Section 219(f)(374), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,700,000
Clark County, NV
Section 219(f)(168), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Clean Water Coalition, NV
Section 219(f)(169), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Glendale Dam Diversion Structure, NV
Section 219(f)(170), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Henderson, NV
Section 219(f)(171), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,000,000
Indian Springs, NV
Section 219(f)(172), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,000,000
Reno, NV
Section 219(f)(173), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,000,000
Washoe County, NV
Section 219(f)(174), WRDA 1992, as amended
$14,000,000
Babylon, NY
Section 219(f)(179), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Chenango County, NY
Section 219(c)(14), WRDA 1992, as amended
—
Clarkstown, NY
Section 219(f)(375), WRDA 1992, as amended
$14,600,000
El icottvil e, NY
Section 219(f)(180), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Elmira, NY
Section 219(f)(181), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Essex Hamlet, NY
Section 219(f)(182), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Fleming, NY
Section 219(f)(183), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Congressional Research Service

28

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Genesee, NY
Section 219(f)(376), WRDA 1992, as amended
$85,000,000
Kiryas Joel, NY
Section 219(f)(184), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Niagara Falls, NY
Section 219(f)(185), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Otsego County, NY
Section 219(c)(13), WRDA 1992, as amended
—
Patchogue, NY
Section 219(f)(186), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Queens, NY
Section 219(f)(377), WRDA 1992, as amended
$119,200,000
Sennett, NY
Section 219(f)(187), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Springport and Fleming, NY
Section 219(f)(188), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Wellsvil e, NY
Section 219(f)(189), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Yates County, NY
Section 219(f)(190), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Yorktown, NY
Section 219(f)(378), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Akron, OH
Section 219(f)(204), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Brunswick, OH
Section 219(f)(379), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,510,000
Burr Oak Regional Water District, OH
Section 219(f)(205), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Cincinnati, OH
Section 219(f)(206), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Cleveland, OH
Section 219(f)(207), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,500,000
Columbus, OH
Section 219(f)(208), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,500,000
Dayton, OH
Section 219(f)(209), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Defiance County, OH
Section 219(f)(210), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Fostoria, OH
Section 219(f)(211), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Fremont, OH
Section 219(f)(212), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Lake County, OH
Section 219(f)(213), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Lawrence County, OH
Section 219(f)(214), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Meigs County, OH
Section 219(f)(215), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Mentor-on-Lake, OH
Section 219(f)(216), WRDA 1992, as amended
$625,000
Vinton County, OH
Section 219(f)(217), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Wil owick, OH
Section 219(f)(218), WRDA 1992, as amended
$665,000
Ada, OK
Section 219(f)(219), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,700,000
Alva, OK
Section 219(f)(220), WRDA 1992, as amended
$250,000
Ardmore, OK
Section 219(f)(221), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,900,000
Bartlesvil e, OK
Section 219(f)(222), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,500,000
Bethany, OK
Section 219(f)(223), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Chickasha, OK
Section 219(f)(224), WRDA 1992, as amended
$650,000
Disney and Langley, OK
Section 219(f)(225), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,500,000
Durant, OK
Section 219(f)(226), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,300,000
Eastern Oklahoma State University,
Section 219(f)(227), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Wilberton, OK
Congressional Research Service

29

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Guymon, OK
Section 219(f)(228), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,000,000
Konawa, OK
Section 219(f)(229), WRDA 1992, as amended
$500,000
Lawton, OK
Section 219(f)(40), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Lugert-Altus Irrigation District, Altus,
Section 219(f)(230), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
OK
Midwest City, OK
Section 219(f)(231), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Mustang, OK
Section 219(f)(232), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,325,000
Norman, OK
Section 219(f)(233), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Oklahoma Panhandle State University,
Section 219(f)(234), WRDA 1992, as amended
$275,000
Guymon, OK
Weatherford, OK
Section 219(f)(235), WRDA 1992, as amended
$500,000
Woodward, OK
Section 219(f)(236), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Yukon, OK
Section 219(f)(65), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,500,000
Albany, OR
Section 219(f)(237), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Brookings, OR
Section 219(f)(380), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Lane County, OR
Section 219(f)(383), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Monroe, OR
Section 219(f)(381), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Newport, OR
Section 219(f)(382), WRDA 1992, as amended
$60,000,000
Allegheny County, PA
Section 219(f)(66), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Beaver Creek Reservoir, PA
Section 219(f)(238), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Clinton County, PA
Section 219(f)(13), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Hatfield Borough, PA
Section 219(f)(239), WRDA 1992, as amended
$310,000
Lehigh County, PA
Section 219(f)(240), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Northeast Pennsylvania
Section 219(f)(11), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
North Wales Borough, PA
Section 219(f)(241), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,516,584
Palmyra, PA
Section 219(f)(384), WRDA 1992, as amended
$36,300,000
Pen Argyl, PA
Section 219(f)(242), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,250,000
Philadelphia, PA
Section 219(f)(243), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,600,000
Pike County, PA
Section 219(f)(385), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Pittsburgh, PA
Section 219(f)(386), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Pocono, PA
Section 219(f)(387), WRDA 1992, as amended
$22,000,000
Stockerton Borough, Tatamy Borough,
Section 219(f)(244), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
and Palmer Township, PA
Vera Cruz, PA
Section 219(f)(245), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,500,000
Westfall, PA
Section 219(f)(388), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,880,000
Whitehall, PA
Section 219(f)(389), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Section 219(f)(246), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Beaufort, SC
Section 219(f)(390), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,462,000
Congressional Research Service

30

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Charleston, SC
Section 219(f)(247), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Charleston, SC
Section 219(f)(391), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,583,000
Charleston and West Ashley, SC
Section 219(f)(248), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Crooked Creek, Marlboro County, SC
Section 219(f)(249), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Horry County, SC
Section 219(f)(392), WRDA 1992, as amended
$19,000,000
Mount Pleasant, SC
Section 219(f)(393), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,822,000
Lakes Marion and Moultrie, SC
Section 219(f)(25), WRDA 1992, as amended
$165,000,000
Myrtle Beach and Vicinity, SC
Section 219(f)(250), WRDA 1992, as amended
$31,000,000
North Myrtle Beach and Vicinity, SC
Section 219(f)(251), WRDA 1992, as amended
$74,000,000
Surfside, SC
Section 219(f)(252), WRDA 1992, as amended
$11,000,000
Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation
Section 219(f)(253), WRDA 1992, as amended
$65,000,000
(Dewey and Ziebach Counties) and
Perkins and Meade Counties, SD
Athens, TN
Section 219(f)(254), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,000,000
Blaine, TN
Section 219(f)(255), WRDA 1992, as amended
$500,000
Claiborne County, TN
Section 219(f)(256), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,250,000
Cumberland County, TN
Section 219(f)(24), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Giles County, TN
Section 219(f)(257), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Grainger County, TN
Section 219(f)(258), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,250,000
Hamilton County, TN
Section 219(f)(259), WRDA 1992, as amended
$500,000
Harrogate, TN
Section 219(f)(260), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Johnson County, TN
Section 219(f)(261), WRDA 1992, as amended
$600,000
Knoxvil e, TN
Section 219(f)(262), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Nashvil e, TN
Section 219(f)(263), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties,
Section 219(f)(264), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
TN
Oak Ridge, TN
Section 219(f)(265), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Plateau Utility District, Morgan County, Section 219(f)(266), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
TN
Portland, TN
Section 219(f)(394), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,850,000
Shelby County, TN
Section 219(f)(267), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Smith County, TN
Section 219(f)(395), WRDA 1992, as amended
$19,500,000
Trousdale, Macon, and Sumner
Section 219(f)(396), WRDA 1992, as amended
$178,000,000
Counties, TN
Central Texas, TX
Section 219(f)(268), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
El Paso County, TX
Section 219(f)(269), WRDA 1992, as amended
$75,000,000
Ft. Bend County, TX
Section 219(f)(270), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Duchesne, Iron, and Uintah Counties,
Section 219(f)(271), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,800,000
UT
Congressional Research Service

31

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Park City, UT
Section 219(c)(40) as modified by (e)(17),
$30,000,000
WRDA 1992, as amended
Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia,
Section 219(f)(10), WRDA 1992, as amended
$52,000,000
VA
Lynchburg, VA
Section 219(c)(16) as modified by (e)(7),
$30,000,000
WRDA 1992, as amended
Richmond, VA
Section 219(c)(17) as modified by (e)(8),
$30,000,000
WRDA 1992, as amended
United States Virgin Islands
Section 219(f)(273), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
United States Virgin Islands
Section 219(f)(397), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,584,000
Bonney Lake, WA
Section 219(f)(398), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Burien, WA
Section 219(f)(399), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
El ensburg, WA
Section 219(f)(400), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
North Bend, WA
Section 219(f)(401), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Port Angeles, WA
Section 219(f)(402), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,500,000
Snohomish County, WA
Section 219(f)(403), WRDA 1992, as amended
$56,000,000
Western Washington State, WA
Section 219(f)(404), WRDA 1992, as amended
$200,000,000
Milwaukee, WI
Section 219(f)(405), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,500,000
St. Croix Falls, WI
Section 219(f)(76), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Northern West Virginia, WV
Section 219(f)(272), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Non-Section 219 Project Authorities
Jackson County, AL
Section 522, WRDA 1996
$3,000,000
Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Section 220, WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
for Benton and Washington Counties,
AR
Demonstration of Waste Water
Section 218, WRDA 1992
$10,000,000
Technology, Santa Clara Valley Water
District and San Jose, CA
Reuse of Waste Water in Santa Rosa,
Section 217, WRDA 1992
$5,000,000
CA and Monterey County, CA
Water Monitoring Station, MT
Section 584, WRDA 1996, as amended
$100,000
Hackensack Meadowlands Area, NJ
Section 324, WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Acequia Systems, NM
Section 1113, WRDA 1986, as amended
$80,000,000
Programmatic Authorities
Western Rural Water for Arizona,
Section 595, WRDA 1999, as amended
$1,000,000,000
Idaho, Montana, Rural Nevada, New
Mexico, Rural Utah, and Wyoming
Lake Tahoe Basin Restoration, NV and
Section 108, Energy and Water Development
$50,000,000
CA
Appropriations Act, 2005, as amended
Ohio and North Dakota
Section 594, WRDA 1999, as amended
$450,000,000
Congressional Research Service

32

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Authorization of
Name
Authority
Appropriations
Southeastern Pennsylvania and Lower
Section 566, WRDA 1996, as amended
$70,000,000
Delaware Basin, PA, NJ, DE
Lake Champlain, VT and NY
Section 542, WRDA 2000, as amended
$100,000,000
Alaska
Section 570, WRDA 1999, as amended
$45,000,000
California
Section 5039, WRDA 2007
$40,000,000
Los Angeles County, CA
Section 8319, WRDA 2022
$50,000,000
Placer and El Dorado Counties, CA
Section 130, the Energy and Water
$40,000,000
Development Appropriations Act, 2004
Upper Klamath Basin, CA
Section 132, the Energy and Water
$25,000,000
Development Appropriations Act, 2004
East Central and Northeast Florida, FL
Section 5061, WRDA 2007
$40,000,000
Florida Keys Water Quality
Section 109, Division B of Appendix D of the
$200,000,000
Improvements, FL
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, as
amended
Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Section 5065, WRDA 2007
$20,000,000
Planning District, GA
Southwest Il inois, IL
Section 5074, WRDA 2007
$40,000,000
Southern and Eastern Kentucky, KY
Section 531, WRDA 1996, as amended
$100,000,000
East Atchafalaya Basin and Amite River
Section 5082, WRDA 2007
$40,000,000
Basin Region, LA
Southeast Louisiana Region, LA
Section 5085, WRDA 2007
$17,000,000
Northeastern Minnesota, MN
Section 569, WRDA 1999, as amended
$80,000,000
Northern Missouri, MO
Section 8353, WRDA 2022
$50,000,000
Mississippi
Section 592, WRDA 1999, as amended
$300,000,000
Coastal Mississippi Environmental
Section 528, WRDA 2000
$10,000,000
Restoration, MS
North Carolina
Section 5113, WRDA 2007
$13,000,000
Central New Mexico, NM
Section 593, WRDA 1999, as amended
$100,000,000
Onondaga Lake, NY
Section 573, WRDA 1999, as amended
$30,000,000
New York City Watershed, NY
Section 552, WRDA 1996, as amended
$42,500,000
Southwestern Oregon, OR
Section 8359, WRDA 2022
$50,000,000
South Central Pennsylvania, PA
Section 313, WRDA 1992, as amended
$410,000,000
East Tennessee, TN
Section 5130, WRDA 2007
$40,000,000
Texas
Section 5138, WRDA 2007, as amended
$80,000,000
Dallas County Region, TX
Section 5140, WRDA 2007
$40,000,000
Northern Wisconsin, WI
Section 154, Division B of Appendix D of the
$60,000,000
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, as
amended
Northern West Virginia, WV
Section 571, WRDA 1999, as amended
$120,000,000
Southern West Virginia, WV
Section 340, WRDA 1992, as amended
$140,000,000
Congressional Research Service

33

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Source: CRS, using public laws and deauthorization lists (see lists published in 74 Federal Register 31713-31715,
July 2, 2009, and in 81 Federal Register 16147-16153, March 25, 2016).
Notes: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 = P.L. 106-554; Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2004 = P.L. 108-137; Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 = Division C of P.L. 108-
447; WRDA = Water Resources Development Act; WRDA 1992 = P.L. 102-580; WRDA 1996 = P.L. 104-303;
WRDA 1999 = P.L. 106-53; WRDA 2000 = P.L. 106-541; WRDA 2007 = P.L. 110-114; WRDA 2022 = Division
H, Title LXXXI of P.L. 117-263. Congress provided no specific authorization of appropriations for assistance for
Section 219(c) of WRDA 1992 authorities but provided $30 mil ion total authorization of appropriations for
design assistance for projects under Section 219(c), unless designated as also providing specific authorization of
appropriations for construction assistance. The table does not include the amount of appropriations that have
funded these authorities.

Congressional Research Service

34

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Author Information

Anna E. Normand

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47162 · VERSION 13 · UPDATED
35